Elena Kagan, the socialist, the wrong choice for America

PLEASE READ THIS.

Elena Kagan is a horror to the principles of this country. She is an open socialist, as are most of Obama's cabinet members. What exactly is the radical and "change" they are looking for? They are looking to consolidate all power and wealth into the executive branch and create an oligarchy like in Europe. This is not what America is about.

Whatever your viewpoint is about how this country is run, being socialists is NOT what we want done here. We want freedom. If any of this is confusing, read the constitution of the United States.

Elena Kagan's College Thesis


[]

OBAMA'S STRATEGY TO STUFF THE BALLOT BOX WITH DEMOCRAT VOTES

Dear Friends,

As Obama’s popularity wanes and more and more Americans that voted for Obama are now realizing that this is not what they signed up for, Obama is planning a strategy to stay in power through corrupting both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Although he continues to be popular with the mainstream media (follow the money), he is not so with the average American. At no time in our history have such large scale protests occurred to redress the government with a list of grievances - not even at our founding as a nation. And now, riots of illegal aliens, openly threatening American citizens with violence are treated with media favoritism and the sanctioned blessing of federal politicians on both sides of the isle in Washington, but mostly democrats, whereas Tea Party protesters, who in America’s largest peaceful protest movement have not even intimated violent threats, but have been used by the Obama administration to escalate the conflict between the citizens of this country and the naked power-abusing and usurping government in Washington by profiling us and placing us on government watch-lists. Whether Obama succeeds or not with his strategy to corrupt the ballot depends on We the People and our willingness to become involved.

Strategy #1 Although acting like he would not like to take up the issue of illegal immigration at this time, in reality, behind the scenes Obama is working with the Democrat House and Senate to shove another bill down our throats that will grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens in this country right now, and at the same time register them to vote. By legitimizing the violation of our national borders and circumvention of our legal system, those granted amnesty will also receive the fattest package of welfare benefits ever offered, and this will essentially marry them to the welfare state sponsored by Obama and the democrats and paid for by you and me. SPEAK OUT NOW SAYING “WE WANT ENFORCEMENT - NOT AMNESTY”!

Strategy #2 And this strategy is designed to steal electoral votes – Efforts are now afoot by Obama supporters in Puerto Rico and House and Senate democrats in Washington to try to get Puerto Rico admitted as a state. They may or may not succeed with this scheme, but success for them would mean 2 senators and probably 6 representatives, who would ALL most likely be democrats, mitigating Obama’s unpopularity at home. SPEAK OUT NOW SAYING “WE CAN’T AFFORD THE NET DRAIN ON OUR TREASURY BY ADMITTING PUERTO RICO AS A STATE AND WE WON’T TOLERATE THIS EXPANSION OF ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS IN A TIME OF UNPRECEDENTED NATIONAL ECONOMIC CRISIS JUST TO SECURE MORE VOTES FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY”!

Strategy #3 Look for ACORN to be reconstituted in some new form or forms to continue to be the political foot soldiers of the Obama machine, in accordance with the communist Saul Alinsky’s rabble rousing plan to create crisis, unrest, and to subvert the vote. Don’t be surprised if some of these new organizations show up as “undisclosed” recipients of TARP or other bailout funds, either. Fight back by actively supporting candidates who will OPPOSE THIS TYPE OF CORRUPTION. It’s time now to identify those candidates that will preserve your freedom and oppose tyranny.

It’s time to act now, educating people on the difference between liberty and tyranny, and taking the time and deliberate effort to enlist the support of those who will vote to SUPPORT AND DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION and the government that it constitutes, rather than fundamentally changing it into a Marxist globalist system of tyranny.

John L Wadsworth

District 5 Chairman

Contra Costa Republican Central Committee

ARE YOU EXTREME?

Dear Friends,

I urge you to consider these words from the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

I want you to consider the struggle our forefathers endured to secure our liberties, knowing full well that another tyranny would threaten them at some time in the future. For this reason, even after the Constitution was established, it was amended with 10 amendments, which we refer to as “The Bill of Rights”. We are living in a day and age, when its probably wise to state the obvious, so bear with me. The general level of ignorance of both our history and our form of government is high. I want to state in this email that I, for one, do not believe ANY of the 10 amendments which constitute the people’s Bill of Rights are extreme – no, not one of them. And, furthermore, I don’t consider anyone to be extreme, who counts all 10 of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights to be his or her own God-given rights. When I encounter fellow Republicans, who think that anyone who supports zealously ANY of these 10 amendments is extreme, I am compelled to say “How, after having taken an oath to support, protect, defend, and preserve the Constitution, can you castigate or marginalize your fellow citizens for simply holding to that which you swore to uphold, and has been handed down to us as an heritage and a form of government which has preserved at such a great price? Do you want me to consider you “moderate”? I don’t consider such a one moderate, but rather a SELL-OUT. Is that what the big tent idea of the Republican Party is all about? Does the “big tent” concept marginalize those who honestly believe in all 10 of the Bill of Rights amendments? Let me candidly say, that this is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT REASON that Republicans keep losing and now risk fracturing our party– its called lacking principles. I rather call those who refuse to defend our Bill of Rights (all 10 of them) as wishy washy, lukewarm, and not worthy of my vote.

The Bill of Rights is not extreme. These are our rights. We hold them to be ordained by God. I’d like you to consider the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights. Here’s the first one:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

You are living in a time when the largest peacable assembly and petitioning of our federal government for a redress of grievances has been made. I am referring to the Tea Party movement. It has no equal in our nation’s history. And what has been the response from Washington? It is not only being ignored by the government in Washington, but ridiculed and even vilified.

And now, Obama, knowing full well that he can not win an election of U.S. citizens, is preparing to corrupt our next election by the dilution of our vote with millions of illegal aliens. This is an abuse. This is an usurpation. Our founders gave us the ability to vote in free elections, and Americans have held this as a sacred right. If Obama corrupts our right to an equal vote at election time just so he can hold on to power, then…

Will we have a failure of the ballot in the next three years? An election with federal tampering? Will Barack Hussein Obama stuff the ballot boxes with 30 million new “citizens’” votes to offset his growing unpopularity? It’s a fair question, is it not?

Now, let me bring up the 2^nd amendment. It is designed for situations such as might arise, whereby the people would need arms to redress their grievances, or to repel invasions (read unrestrained illegal crossing of our Southern border) and suppress insurrections. It reads as follows:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Here is a little primer on the 2^nd amendment that is worth watching:

That’s right, the founders did not put the 2^nd amendment in the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of duck hunters. Its for preserving liberty. I suggest you become familiar with it and a supporter of it.

To draw on some words in the Declaration, let me try this:

"The history of the present Barack Hussein Obama (King of Britain, in the Declaration) is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

Now, I know there are those who disagree, and that’s fine, you have a right to, but many today are wanting to hold on a lot tighter to the liberties we have left, and so we are starting to enumerate them as defined in the Constitution, which is the Compact, or contract that we citizens have with the Federal government. You might call this a sort of Constitutional revival. The Constitution is in its own words the “Supreme Law of the Land”. Not a man, not the Senate, not the House of Representatives, not the Judiciary, but the Constitution.

This is known as the Supremacy Clause. Here it is:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

The lazy or slothful might just say, “well, we should just submit to the government”, but honestly, the Constitution is higher than the government, just as the creator is greater than the creature. And, if the government disobeys the Constitution, you are without excuse if you let the tyranny go unchecked. By the way, the Constitution is also higher than the judges in our form of government. Its higher than the President. Its higher than the Congress. It is the Supreme Law of the land, and it comes from We the People. There isn’t a literate man or woman who is incapable of understanding the clear meaning of its words. It wasn’t written in a cryptic language to be interpreted by specially initiated government appointees speaking “ex-cathedra”.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t need a political science professor to tell me what the Constitution says or doesn’t say. Its written in plain English. Its time to identify and support candidates who will support it.

John L Wadsworth

District 5 Chairman, Contra Costa Republican Central Committee

PS Start building your own VIRTUAL PRECINCT for the upcoming election. Contact me for more information. Let’s do our part to restore the Republic.

[]

REVOLUTION ISN’T SCARY…TYRANNY IS

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=143209#ooid=pqamp1OowIzqa5ue3gn8PBlAW0HOpJaQ

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." -Abraham Lincoln

John L Wadsworth

District 5 Chairman, Contra Costa County Republican Party

(Contact me if you want to help me win the undecided voter!)

WHAT ELESE WOULD YOU LIKE REMOVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION?

Dear Friends,

I want to share with you the plight of a U.S. Army LT COL who is standing for the U.S. Constitution on your behalf and who needs your support. LT COL Lakin is the highest ranking officer to refuse to obey orders without having proof that the orders are legal (based on the Constitution’s Article 2 Section 1 requirement that the president be a natural born citizen. LT COL. Lakin is refusing to violate his conscience by blindly obeying orders that he knows are based on a Commander in Chief whom neither Congress, the Judiciary, nor the Attorneys General of the States properly vetted, in other words, an illegitimate and usurping Commander in Chief – at least that’s how it looks to many of us who have followed this issue since the primary election of 2008.

And for those liberals and establishment Republicans (RINOs) who think that the “birther” movement is somehow irrelevant, I have this question –

WHAT OTHER PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION DO YOU CONSISDER TO BE IRRELEVANT?

I have the same question for the “celeb conservatives” in the media WHO PROFIT OFF RATINGS and who mock the “birther” movement, probably because it would hurt their ratings if they got behind it. A cursory reading of the Constitution will reveal that the signers of the Constitution, themselves were “birthers”. Shame on any so-called conservative who won’t stand behind this clear requirement in the Constitution to be President.

Obama has spent almost $2 Million suppressing the release of a certified copy of his original birth certificate (something which every U.S. service member is required to supply), school records, thesis, visas, passports, etc.

By and large, the best citizens of this country have deep respect and honor for the members of our military. It is obvious that based on LT COL Lakin’s pending court martial, that in order for him to have a fair trial, Obama’s personal records will have to be subpoenaed. If they are not released by the Obama, then this currently serving LT COL will not have a fair trial. Let’s see if Obama really supports the troops. Its within his power to do it. He is also certainly aware of it, since he is at the top of the chain of command. Following is a copy of LT COL Lakin’s appeal to Obama:

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/terry-lakins-letter-to-potus.html

If you have ever considered yourself someone who supports the troops, then you owe it to yourself to be familiar with this issue.

NPR, in the following article said that Obama was born in Kenya:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=138293

Here is a link to a story about a Kenyan official who states that Obama was born in Kenya:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139481

Michelle Obama is also on record saying that Obama was born in Kenya:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=136769

During the last election cycle, due to media pressure, McCain had to prove his eligibility due to the fact that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone (controlled by the U.S. at the time), to two U.S. citizens, but the media and the establishment politicians have not made this an “equal opportunity” requirement. They are giving Obama a pass. That is not right, especially when active duty service members are at risk.

Whether you are a constitutional conservative, liberal, establishment Republican or even if you have a son or daughter who may be eligible to serve in the military, you integrity and honor require you to demand that LT COL Lakin be given a fair trial. This can only happen if Obama’s records are subpoenaed. I encourage you to support this LT COL, who is personally defending the Constitution, risking everything he has on your behalf. Please read his letter to Mr. Obama.

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/terry-lakins-letter-to-potus.html

But if honor and integrity do no compel you to support LT COL Lakin, then consider this – that if Obama is revealed to be the usurper that he apparently is, then much of the destruction that he has wrought on our very form of government may be overturned as being illegitimate.

In Liberty,

John L Wadsworth
District 5 Chairman
Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee

What the fight is all about

This says it all right here people. Whatever we stand for, whatever we fight for, the enemy we fight against are those elected representatives who do not hold our constitution to heart. Democrat, Republican, Russian or Muslim it doesn't matter, the enemy are those who would subvert this country from WITHIN not from without.

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

-- Lincoln's Jan. 27. 1838 address to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, IL, entitled "The Perpetuation of our Political Institutions:"

Don't get side-tracked by what the right wing or left wing media tell us who the enemy is. Don't believe for a second the enemy are those people across the isle who have a different way of thinking than you do. Humanity is beautiful. The human spirit lives on and wants to be free. We are born free, we want to live free, and we will die free. Anyone who comes around and wants to put you in a box is the enemy.

Got constitution?

Obama's Private Army enforcement of biometric national identification number

Dear Friends,

I suggest you watch the following you-tube video:

More blatantly unconstitutional abuses of power… an army (starting at 6,000) that is accountable only to Obama, and which circumvents the governors of the “several states”, and which receives funding well beyond the constitutional appropriations requirement of every two years. This was contained in two pages of the 2,700 pages the bill. There isn’t a democrat or republican who read the entire bill. No, it wasn’t a transparent process, and no it wasn’t debated on C-Cpan as the usurper Obama promised. Obama lied. Language in the bill suggests that this army would be used in a national crisis, and pardon me, but now I have to ask “what kind of crisis might these folks gin up so they could fulfill their stated goals of hope and change?”. And, for what purpose would a military wing be needed for use on our own soil that has anything to do with health care?

I wonder if this “army” will be used to enforce the national id card (Page 58 of the bill) which may be biometrically applied to the human hand. After all, under the mandatory health plan, you must be properly identified…IT’S THE LAW. Will the i.d. requirement on page 58 be combined with the Schumer/Graham proposal of a biometric, fraud-proof national i.d? In my opinion, look in the near future for Obama’s special enforcement apparatchiks to enforce a new i.d. on you. Is this the hope and change you voted for? Maybe not, but this is what happens when an entire nation rejects God and develops a mainstream pop-culture that calls evil good and good evil. The law of sowing and reaping has not been repealed and God is still on the throne.

WORSHIP THE ONE TRUE LIVING GOD, NOT GOV! I reject Obama. I reject his law, and I reject his usurping government.

Even the Europeans are warning us of an emergent communism (notice I didn’t say socialism) on our own soil.

Read this article from The European Union Times:

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/03/world-mourns-as-communist-darkness-falls-upon-america/

ARE MEN THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE, OR ARE THEY FREE SOULS UNDER GOD?

Dear Friends,

As Tom McClintock recently made mention in his speech to the House of Representatives concerning the Intolerable Act known as Obamacare, Cecil B DeMille asks in the following clip from the movie “The Ten Commandments”, “Are men the property of the state, or are they free souls free souls under God?

Also worth considering along these lines is the question “Who is greater? The creature, or the creator?” In the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, it is stated that “we the people” create the government by ordaining this Constitution. Our republic began with a government that was created by the people, with the intent that the creature (government) would exist to serve the creator (the people). The totalitarian abuse of power we are witnessing emerge before us blatantly and irreconcilably alters this relationship between the creature and the creator into one that presses the people in a role-reversal that is symptomatic of many of the societal ills that have been plaguing our nation now for decades, to the point that those at the highest level of government in this country behave and act like they have created us and like we exist to serve them. Please bear this in mind, that the creature is not greater than the creator. The altered relationship between the government of this nation and its citizens is just part of the “hope and change” that Obama intends to force upon us. If you value your freedom under God, then it is time to get involved in preserving the liberties that our Constitution guarantees us.

You need to understand that under the Maoist philosophy that Obama is becoming known for, people are the property of the state, and there is enmity towards God and His values.

The Constitution is on life support, and we the People need to come to its rescue. If you want to get involved, please contact me.

John L Wadsworth

District 5 Chariman

Contra Costa County Republican Party

List of Constitutional Violations in Healthcare bill

Posted on March 22, 2010 6:04:02 PM PDT by JimWayne

Article 1, Section 7 - All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

First Amendment (Establishment Clause) and Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) - [Quote: "Exempts from the coverage requirement individuals who object to health care coverage on religious grounds"]: Although the courts allowed the Amish not to pay Social Security tax, this bill would be different if it exempts the Amish and Muslims from participating in the system while forcing the Catholics to participate in it.

Article 1, sections 1 and 8 (Powers of the Congress) and Article 5 (Procedure to Amend the Constitution) - [Quote: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."] - The quoted text effectively amends the Constitution and abridges the law-making authority of Congress. This has been done without two-thirds majority.

Article 1, Section 8 (Commerce Clause) - The commerce clause grants rights to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce (health insurance is not interstate commerce since you cannot buy it across state lines). Secondly, not buying insurance is not commerce.

Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

Fifth Amendment - nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[]

OBAMAS INTOLERABLE ACT and this reprehensible usurpation and abuse of power

Dear Friends,

Here are some random thoughts in a bullet point format regarding the health care reform act. Please consider them carefully.

· Largest Federal funding of abortion in U.S. history, and while this may be a sacred cow to you, its life and death to me, and also worth fighting, killing, and dying for just as ending slavery was for some Americans in the 19^th century. Even an aborigine knows its murder to go into the womb and end the life of a baby. Maybe that’s ok with you, but it’s not with me.

· A healthcare program that will be overseen by a healthcare czar (unelected, and accountable only to Obama). I wonder if this Czar’s moral system of values honors the sanctity of life as a gift from God, or as an asset to be managed for the progress of the state.

· The “public option” is a myth. This is an engineered monopoly by Obama, and the companies he has cut deals with.

· Transparency…There IS NO transparency. No – it’s NOT being debated on C-Span for all to see, as the Dear Leader promised us. Conclusion…he lied.

· The details of the deals Obama has made with various pharmaceutical and health care corporations, unions, and Planned Parenthood are not public, according to the Dear Leader.

· 16,000 NEW IRS agents will be the enforcers of this Intolerable Act. Well that’s great…Midianites, as far as I’m concerned (Read about Gideon).

· Illegal aliens will continue to receive coverage, just as they do now, but there is no mechanism to fine them for not participating in the proposed government-approved ( or more accurately party-approved) health care plan and pay their share.

· We will have to be in a plan THEY designate or we will be fined, imprisoned, OR BOTH (illegals, however, will not be fined or imprisoned for refusal to comply, …the laws that apply to illegal immigration aren’t even being applied NOW!).

· What ever happened to those feminist liberals of yesteryear who used to chant “keep your laws off my body”? Where are you now?? You have no principles, otherwise, you would be consistent with your feminist slogans, because NOW, this is legislation that really does affect YOUR bodies, not just the bodies of the babies you have killed.

· For the first time in U.S. history, the government is telling us WHAT product to buy upon penalty of fine or imprisonment, without the ability to opt out.

· Is Social Security solvent? How about Medicare? These are the two big milestone programs that Nancy Pelosi touted tonight. How are the U.S. Post Office’s financials? Ok, then…What would lead you or I to believe that they would manage this system any better? Besides that, why should the government be not only the regulator of this health care scheme, but also the middleman (can anyone say “cha-ching$$$$”).

· Read the 10^th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Its only one sentence long (for crying out loud!!). Is it too difficult to understand after reading this that Federal health care like this is not constitutional? Have you even READ the Constitution?

· This is a naked seizure of power by a leftist regime, and too many Americans are going along with it peacefully, perhaps because they are ignorant of the Constitution, perhaps because they are ignorant of history, or perhaps because they have abandoned their faith in God, or even worse yet, they have made God into a likeness according to their own moral stature and image, and can’t see Him as one who would protect the lives of the innocents, defend people’s liberty, and not tolerate money changing in the temple. That is the only thing that is transparent to me. What is involved here is power, money, the threat of fines or imprisonment, the forced compliance with the medical ethic of Maoists who admittedly want to reduce our population through abortion, sterilization, and elimination of those who oppose them.

· Nancy Pelosi, tonight bastardized the founding documents of our nation tonight, to the applause of power hungry Democrat statists, who probably didn’t know the difference.

Something like this has not happened before in American history. This is a bill that sponsors murder. It will kill more jobs than it creates and reduce employment drastically. Its immoral. Congress is exempt from it. We can’t afford it, and most of us would not want to buy it even if we could, but to compel us in this manner to participate in something so morally reprehensible to many of us, truly makes this an INTOLERABLE ACT.

Closing with a quote from James Madison…”We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future…upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.” 1778

John

[]

JOE - Joint Operating Environment 2010

The attached report was recently released.

If you don’t have time to read it, I suggest you read the following article by Jerome Corsi, who comments on it.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128413

I doubt the msm is going to cover this. It’s important to understand the times we are living in.

JOE_2010_o

The deficit spending that is going on in Washington is now identified as a national security threat to the United States by our own top military planners. Not only is this type of stimulus spending unrighteous, since it taxes people who are not even born yet (so much for taxation with representation), but it is destroying our free market, capitalist economic system. Obama, and a number of his czars are on record for openly supporting Maoism (that is communism), which operates by a completely different, and centrally planned economy. This is not just an economic issue. Obama and those associated with him are trying to bring down the United States and replace it with a form of communism that is consistent with their radical beliefs. In the future they are trying to shape for us here on our own soil, many individual liberties will be a thing of the past, unless more people wake up, become knowledgeable, and take action now to preserve them.

The hope and change that is emerging in our own country involves centrally planned economics, centrally planned life spans, centrally planned abortion, centrally planned energy use, centrally planned thought policing, centrally planned firearms ownership, centrally planned education and indoctrination, centrally planned diets, centrally planned transportation, centrally planned banking, insurance, auto industry, etc. Centralized planning results in a proportional loss of liberty on the part of the citizens of this country, and it puts on the slippery slope towards totalitarianism. Our own Constitution does not allow most of what is now being planned centrally.

I never sent out my comments on Obama’s “state of the union” speech, but for the first time in such a speech, to my knowledge, he publicly scapegoated the Chief Justices of the Supreme court (which is an equal branch of government to the Executive), and the Congress (which is also an equal branch of government to the Executive branch). Please watch carefully this behavior of scapegoating groups of people. It’s been used often in the rise of totalitarian regimes and is a well established characteristic of tyrants, not public servants.

He also called for a “jobs bill”. This is just another name for yet another stimulus package.

Our own military planners also predict that we will not be able to keep up with China (again, I implore you to count the Maoists in the Obama administration). Our defeat is being engineered by those in office in our own country.

What the report will not say, but is certainly true is that Obama is a threat to our national security and our very form of government.

John

[]

Power has a Shelf Life

As Americans we need to set a supreme example to the rest of the world. As I tell my kids, "are you setting the best example you can?" We need to ask this of ourselves on the world stage. What does the rest of the world say about us? How about when we travel, when we talk to others? We need to make the best choices we can. Sure we are going to make mistakes, but I think U.S. foreign policy has been due for a revamp since World War II.

If you are not American, what do you think about our country? Please comment, or send a video response. Tell me what you and/or your country does to set an example to the rest of the world too. I truly want to start a dialog on this subject. Tell your friends to login and comment too.

Throughout the world we will all have different cultures and view-points. We should at least be able to trade goods and be cordial to one another. The original United States experiment in 1776 seemed to work well until the greedy bankers got involved in 1913. Maybe somebody can recommend a way to rid us of this evil. I want to be free again.

If you are American, please comment and tell me what you think. What do you think our society has done. Do you agree we have problems with our foreign policy? What are your views on the people who control this country? What about the gap between the rich and the poor, our borders, the SPP (www.spp.gov), and more?



"Donald Rumsfeld said that his mission in the War Against Terror was to persuade the world that Americans must be allowed to continue their way of life. When the maddened King stamps his foot, slaves tremble in their quarters. So, standing here today, it's hard for me to say this, but 'The American Way of Life' is simply not sustainable. Because it doesn't acknowledge that there is a world beyond America.

Fortunately, power has a shelf-life. When the time comes, maybe this mighty empire will, like others before it, overreach itself and implode from within. It looks as though structural cracks have already appeared. As the War Against Terror casts its net wider and wider, America's corporate heart is hemorrhaging. For all the endless empty chatter about democracy, today the world is run by three of the most secretive institutions in the world: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, all three of which, in turn, are dominated by the U.S. Their decisions are made in secret. The people who head them are appointed behind closed doors. Nobody really knows anything about them, their politics, their beliefs, their intentions. Nobody elected them. Nobody said they could make decisions on our behalf. A world run by a handful of greedy bankers and CEOs who nobody elected can't possibly last.

Soviet-style communism failed, not because it was intrinsically evil but because it was flawed. It allowed too few people to usurp too much power. Twenty-first century market-capitalism, American-style, will fail for the same reasons. Both are edifices constructed by human intelligence, undone by human nature.

The time has come, the Walrus said. Perhaps things will get worse and then better. Perhaps there's a small god up in heaven readying herself for us. Another world is not only possible, she's on her way. Maybe many of us won't be here to greet her, but on a quiet day, if I listen very carefully, I can hear her breathing". -- Arundhati Roy, "Come September"

If you can be told what you can see or read...then it follows that you can be told what to say or think. Defend your constitutionally protected rights; no one else will do it for you.

start reading or we're all screwed.

---

Search on "we arundhati roy" and full video is under profile "mqazafi" or "weroy" and website is "http://www.weroy.org/". The full speech is called "come september" and can be found online, or e-mail me private and I will post it for you.

Glenn Beck and The Truth about 911 Truthers

by Thurston Bell

Since Mr. Beck's recent slanderous attack of a Freedom and Liberty candidate and trying to pull off a political hit job on her, it appears to be time to refocus on truth, what can be known, and settled as opposed to argued endlessly.

The Truth is, according to Academics, who might not be as reliable as what we once thought due to the most recent 'sky is falling' doomsday problem generated, say that Emperor Nero wanted to expand his Palace, so he burned down a huge portion of Rome and blamed it on some Religious Fundamentalist Insurgents.

Those people by the way were Christians.

Historians also say that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party burned down the Reichstag and blamed some Political and Religious Radical Insurgents called Communists. (I call them Religious as they believe in Man and Man alone being in power and absolute control of things, and have caused great Human Sacrifices in the name of their Faith in Man.)

There are admissions out of the Southern Poverty Law Center that cast a pall upon them and the FBI in that they both were complicit or complacent, or even aided and abetted in the Oklahoma City Bombing, allowing at least one person to believe that they were acting for the purposes of a cause against government evil.

It looks like they were instead used FOR further government evil.

Here in Michigan significant facts have appeared to show the Government knew about the Christmas Bomber as well.

My how things would have been different had THE PEOPLE on the plane not been brave enough to confront with bare hands what was deemed a viable and actual threat!

So, the record shows that Sun Tzu's the Art of War, his chapter on the use of Spies and Lies is alive and well in Mass Manipulation, even by Media, which brings us to September 11, 2001.

With evidence in place that proves that those in power still possess opportunity, the next question to prove is motive.

Nero had one.

Hitler had one.

The Government after Ruby Ridge and Waco had one, as it needed to make itself to be the victim after the crimes it committed, and thus return political stability and allegiance of the People.

What would be the motive for 911?

(I dispense with all of the Theories and discussions of HOW, because How has only brought division,that makes people look insane as Glenn Beck has recently tried to do, and all of the evidence has been destroyed.)

I offer the recent words of former Money Power Agent Paul Craig Roberts (former Treasury Official) pointing out how under Bush and Obama the Police State marches on.

One should be able to see by the way the Patriot Act was written and not decoded for its significance to be understood before being voted on, by the Habeas Corpus cases that have been generated recently before the Supreme Court, the creation of DHS, the arming of the Police with all types of weapons to sonically abuse and cook THE PEOPLE, that the level of government fear of just the IRS was no longer enough, they needed to spread Terror and control everywhere in every place possible.

Just as I watched a movie about Chile during the Pinochet Terror Regime, America has begun to look so much the same, with Government show of force (terror) being acceptable, and new weapons being pointed at THE PEOPLE. Wire Taps, surveillance, and descriptions of undesirables being vague and causing people to fear one another.

Their enemies were the elusive "Terrorists". A Government always searching and never finding, always looking and never seeing (how is that Christmas Bomber?), and THE PEOPLE who cried out for Liberty and Freedom were disappeared.

No new game plan here folks.

It is over 3000 years old. Even the Founders of America knew that Liberty in exchange for Security was a Shell Game Con. Every Russian Dictator held absolute power under the promise that once the nation was secure from all threats against their cause, they would then follow their Constitution.

So ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

Are you more Free today than you were on September 10, 2001?

Can America be as courageous as those on the Christmas flight and recognize the true threat that government has planted all by itself?

Bush told the world that 'the Terrorists Hate America because we are Free,'

The U.S. Supreme Court says that the Government has been in ceaseless War against the freedom and liberty of THE PEOPLE since before the the founding of the Nation (Fay v. Noia 1963), thus the Government hates THE PEOPLE who are America because we are free..

If the Motives of the enemies of America, the Terrorists, is the same motive of the Government as testified by the U.S. Supreme Court, is then not the Government at least one of the Terrorists?

The Defense for True Liberty, True Freedom, and True America rests its case.

the Coming Military Crackdown & what can be done

FYI – good reading, Steve

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?..." - Patrick Henry

This is indeed a truly masterful interview, lavishly powerful in its images...including the "After Thoughts".

Whether you "agree" or not with it's "totality" is not paramount; the thought process is.

It is a long and uniquely American work.....a "get a hot beverage, sit, read, digest and think" one...which you must, as your country depends upon that and you.

Quickly plan on forwarding this to anyone you think is "American" inside. Then, plan on when you can do a second, third or more reading.

OK, then...for those of you who care...and I hope that's all of you in my lists...onward, awaringly...

http://www.thedailybell.com/724/Edwin-Vieira-the-Coming-Military-Crackdown.html

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. on the Failure of the Public Sector, the Coming Military Crackdown and What Can Be Done to Stop It

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - with Scott Smith

Edwin Vieira, Jr.

The Daily Bell is pleased to publish an interview with the distinguished libertarian attorney and activist, Edwin Vieira, Jr.

Introduction: Dr. Vieira holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For over thirty-six years he has been a practicing attorney, specializing in cases that raise issues of constitutional law. He has presented numerous cases of import before the Supreme Court and written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals. His latest scholarly works are Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2d rev. ed. 2002), a comprehensive study of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective, and How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary (2004), a study of the problems of irresponsible "judicial supremacy", and how to deal with them. With well known libertarian trader Victor Sperandeo, he is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered "crash" of the Federal Reserve System, and the political revolution it causes. He is now working on an extensive project concerned with the constitutional "Militia of the Several States" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."

Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down with us. Let's get right to it. In your view, what are the most critical domestic problems facing America?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: Two stand out. The foremost problem-because it is the source of, or contributes significantly to, almost every economic difficulty now plaguing this country-is the inherent and ineradicable instability of the present monetary and banking systems centered around the Federal Reserve System.

The second problem derives from the first. It is the ever-accelerating development of a first-class para-militarized police-state apparatus centered around the United States Department of Homeland Security, with its tentacles reaching down into every police force throughout the States and localities. Fundamentally, this apparatus is not, and never was, designed to deal with international "terrorism". If that were its goal, its first task would be absolutely to secure the southern border of the United States, which it has never seriously attempted to do. Rather, it is being set up to deal with what the political-cum-financial Establishment anticipates (and I believe rightly so) will be massive social and political unrest bordering on chaos throughout America when the monetary and banking systems finally implode in the not-so-distant future-surely in hyperinflation, and probably in hyperinflation coupled with a gut-wrenching depression.

Of these two problems, the second is actually the more dangerous. For if (on whatever pretext) this police-state apparatus does succeed in clamping down on America, the likelihood of effecting basic reforms in money, banking, or anything else favorable to the American people will be reduced to something approaching nil, absent a veritable political uprising in this country.

Daily Bell: How can these two problems be solved?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: The problem of money and banking breaks down into two interrelated parts: one economic, the other political.

Economically, the problem lies in the commonly accepted fallacy that debt-whether the private debt of banks or the public debt of governmental treasuries-can function as sound currency over the long term. "Money" is supposed to be the most liquid of all assets-which is why the best moneys have always proven to be the precious metals, silver and gold. "Debt", conversely, is not an asset at all, but is someone's liability, the value of which is contingent upon the debtor's ability and willingness to pay, and often the creditor's ability to force the debtor to pay. The attempt to put into practice the self-contradictory notion that a liability payable in money can be an asset that functions as money-and that the ultimate debtor or surety in this scheme can be a governmental treasury, which usually cannot be compelled to pay in any event-has been tried again and again, in country after country, and failed again and again. For Heaven's sake, it was tried in this country with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and only about twenty years later utterly failed with the banking collapse of 1932, Franklin Roosevelt's seizure of the American people's gold, and the ensuing Great Depression that lasted throughout the 1930s! Right now, we are witnessing what will soon prove to be a more catastrophic failure of that same false idea embodied in that same pernicious institution. Apparently, as the old saw has it, "No one ever learns anything from history except that no one ever learns anything from history." Obviously, massive efforts in public education will be necessary to overcome this deplorable level of ignorance.

In our particular case, the problem also appears in a political form, actually dating from well before 1913: namely, the coupling of bank and state, whereby the government empowers private special-interests groups by statute to "manage" the monetary and banking systems-primarily for the economic benefit of those groups, but as well to the political advantage of the public officials, politicians, and political parties that support the system and receive support from it. The Federal Reserve System is such a coupling: the hermaphroditic creature of private enterprise and statute, at once both quasi-private and quasi-public in source, form, and functions.

Daily Bell: We call it mercantilism.

Edwin Vieira Jr.: Strictly speaking, it is a classic example of a corporative-state arrangement in the particular field of banking, exactly parallel to what Benito Mussolini set up throughout the economy of Fascist Italy, and to what Franklin Roosevelt established for all other American industries in the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (until the Supreme Court declared that act unconstitutional in 1935).

The reason for this unholy alliance between bank and state lies in the operation of "debt as currency": namely, that using "debt as currency"-and particularly "debt as currency" that can be paid through the emission of new "debt as currency"-allows for the essentially unlimited redistribution of real wealth from society to the issuers of the currency and their immediate clients.

When the redistribution favors bankers and their clients among private businessmen, it is called "forced savings"-the average America being compelled by the system to lose real wealth so that the bankers and businessmen can employ that wealth in their own speculative ventures. When the redistribution favors bankers and their clients among public officials, it is called "hidden taxation"-the average America being compelled by the system to lose real wealth so that public officials can buy more votes with more governmental spending (with the bankers taking a cut of the proceeds). In both cases, by the system's very design, the financial and political classes always benefit, the masses are always looted.

The truly vicious nature of this scheme, though, is now appearing in all its ugly nakedness in the multi-trillion-dollar bailouts that the financial Establishment is extorting, and will continue to extort, ultimately from the taxpayers and the victims of inflation, on the threat that, without such payoffs, the entire economy will melt down into irremediable chaos.

So, here we see the ultimate practical truth of the matter: Private financial special-interest groups buy politicians; in public office these politicians empower the special-interest groups by statute to manipulate the monetary and banking systems; to the extent that these manipulations succeed, the profits are largely privatized; and to the extent that the manipulations fail, the losses are almost entirely socialized. In either case, the general public is held hostage to the racket, and foots the gargantuan bill for its operation. And the guilty parties escape scot free to steal again, and again, and again.

Daily Bell: So what is to be done?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: In principle, this problem can be solved, if America enforces her Constitution. In practice, implementing such a solution will take no little time and effort, though, because: (i) the Federal Reserve System cannot simply be "abolished" at one fell swoop without generating massive dislocations throughout the markets; and (ii) the necessary reforms cannot arise out of the snake pit of Congress in the foreseeable future. Instead, Americans need to create an alternative constitutional and sound currency-actually consisting of, not simply "backed by", silver and gold-to compete with Federal Reserve Notes in the marketplace.

This step must be taken at the State level, for several reasons. First, it cannot be done through Congress, because Congress is thoroughly in the vampiric embrace of the financial Establishment. Second, the States enjoy the legal authority to adopt an alternative currency-indeed, as the Constitution declares, "No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". Third, the States' exercise of their legal authority to adopt an alternative currency is constitutionally immune from interference by Congress, as even the Supreme Court has held on more than one occasion. Fourth, the States have a political and legal responsibility to their own citizens to protect the public health, safety, and welfare-which necessitates adopting a sound currency to replace the collapsing Federal Reserve Note before it is too late. And fifth, among the fifty States there must be at least a few in which the political and economic climate is such that State legislators can be convinced to take appropriate action.

Once the experiment has been tried and proven workable in one State, it will quickly spread to others, because no alternative exists, other than supine and stupid acquiescence in the collapse of the Federal Reserve System, with all the dire consequences that will entail.

Daily Bell: We at the Daily Bell are of a free-banking caste, and we often have discussions with what we call Brownians - those who, like Ellen Brown herself, believe that money is the province of the state and that gold and silver are merely commodities until the state stamps them with its authorized mark. We disagree. What do you say?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: The people who believe in "the state theory of money" need to study what the Austrian School of Economics teaches about money, and in particular "the regression theorem" that explains the origin of money. Gold and silver did not become money because some "state" first authorized them as such. Various states throughout history adopted gold and silver as money because markets (particularly in interregional or international trade) were using the precious metals for that purpose. Indeed, that is the explanation for the adoption of the "dollar" (actually, the silver Spanish milled dollar) as the unit of American currency, both under the Articles of Confederation and then explicitly in the Constitution.

More recently, of course, various states, including rogue public officials in the United States, have tried to "demonetize" and then demonize gold and silver in vain attempts to compel free markets to comply with officialdom's generally uneconomic and often blatantly tyrannical political policies. Roosevelt's gold seizure of the 1930s is the pre-eminent example in recent American history.

If gold and silver could function as money only because some state authorized such use, though, there would be no need for states to expend such efforts to "demonetize" the precious metals. Simply withdrawing a state's formal authorization would suffice. So, the veritable war that many states have felt it necessary to wage against specie money, and particularly gold, during most of the Twentieth Century renders rather implausible "the state theory of money".

Daily Bell: Do you believe the current push to audit the Fed will result in success? What would be the result of such an audit in your opinion?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: The Establishment doubtlessly will put up tremendous resistance to a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve System, if that audit includes a thoroughgoing investigation and public exposition of the ulterior motives for and untoward consequences of the System's twists and turns in "monetary policy" over the years. I wonder, however, what such an audit would accomplish, and whether it is really necessary. If ten economists examined the System's decisions, they would probably give a dozen different opinions as to what motivated those decisions, and whether the results were good, bad, or indifferent. So the upshot of an audit could be nothing more than confusion twice confounded.

For all the journalistic shortcomings of its aggressively "liberal" perspective, the old expose by William Greider, The Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (1987), tells us enough about the motivations and performance of the banking cartel, even without a formal audit, to justify the conclusion that it must be disestablished post haste. Actually, anyone who studies the Federal Reserve Act of 1913-particularly in the context of earlier banking and monetary legislation-should conclude that it always was and remains unworkable and doomed to failure, besides being utterly unconstitutional. So an audit is superfluous. On the other hand, if the results of, or the even demands for, an audit would galvanize public opinion into doing something positive in the area of monetary reform-such as supporting adoption of an alternative currency in the States-it probably would be worth the effort. But that is a very large "if".

Daily Bell: Ugh, that was a terrible book. He catalogues what's wrong for hundreds of pages and then decides having the Fed around is better than the alternative. We think it's central banking in large part that has given the elite the funds to take America down the wrong path, and that the velocity is accelerating - given the creation of Homeland Security, etc.

Edwin Vieira Jr.: In my estimation, dealing with the domestic-police-state-in-the-making is an even more critical concern than dealing with the problems engendered by the Federal Reserve System. This, because the present monetary and banking regime, being nothing more than a confidence game, could implode at any moment, and certainly could collapse before an alternative currency were in operation, thereby plunging the country into the sort of economic, political, and social chaos which would serve as the pretext for the imposition of all-round police-state repression. Therefore, if Americans do not have a plan in place, and very soon, for preventing that repression, everything could be lost.

That is not all. Even the Establishment could be hoist with its own petard. The police state now being elaborated from Washington, D.C., does not consist solely of civilian law-enforcement agencies. Rather, the deep thinkers in the "homeland-security" business are working feverishly to insinuate the Armed Forces into their schemes for nationwide domestic oppression. As a practical matter, this is probably necessary (from their point of view), inasmuch as a general economic, political, and social breakdown would set off eruptions of violent unrest beyond the capabilities of most if not all State and local police departments to put down.

Daily Bell: So you believe that the Establishment realizes how large a divide is growing between "average Joes" and America's elitists?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: Of course. Anyone even randomly surfing the Internet will stumble upon massive evidence of the irreconcilable antagonism and rancor rising at a fever pitch among common Americans against the economic and political "leaders" who have sold them and their country down the river. (Which is one of the main reasons the Establishment is desperate to come up with some rationalization and means to censor the Internet.) The Establishment knows that it stands on shaky ground-and that if it can no longer depend on the good will of the people, it must hope to be able to suppress collective manifestations of their ill will. This will require vast numbers of "boots on the ground". Thus, the ever-mounting emphasis by officials in "homeland-security" agencies on involvement of the Armed Forces in domestic "peacekeeping".

As Richard Weaver observed, though, "ideas have consequences"-and, one might add, particularly stupid ideas very often have extremely bad, albeit unintended consequences. The lesson that history teaches, but that the big brains in Washington apparently have not absorbed, is that once politicians (in any country) have turned to the Armed Forces to control domestic dissent arising out of failed economic and social policies, the Armed Forces quickly conclude that they are able and even entitled to become political powers in their own right. After all, why should the Armed Forces not exercise control over the policies and other decisions civilian officials make concerning the deployment of the Armed Forces, particularly when those officials' incompetence or corruption has brought about the domestic disturbances the Armed Forces are expected to risk their lives to quell? And then why should the Armed Forces themselves not promulgate, or at least oversee, policies on all economic and social matters in the first place? Could they fail any more miserably than have the civilian officials?

Furthermore, here in America, if the Armed Forces are deployed to suppress widespread civil unrest emanating from a major breakdown of the economy that threatens the continued viability of the military-industrial complex, the Brass Hats will have a particularly compelling institutional incentive to maintain themselves in positions of political leadership: namely, securing their reason for being and the source of their importance, power, and benefits. In addition, thoroughly politicized Armed Forces will likely feel the need to justify the expensive existence of the military-industrial complex by inserting themselves into, if not instigating outright, ever-expanding overseas military adventures. Thus, "the war on terror"-in addition to whatever other forms of aggressive imperialism can be fomented, ostensibly to "defend our freedoms" in a "homeland" no longer free-will drag on forever, at untold costs in lives and treasure.

Of course, as has proven true everywhere else, politicized Armed Forces in this country will be unable to solve the underlying economic and social problems that rationalized their politicization in the first place. So America will be wracked with chronic political chaos: token civilian regimes staffed with incompetent puppets and "yes men", followed by new bouts of military string-pulling or outright intervention aimed at cleaning up the last crisis, and so on, along the sorry lines South American republics such as Argentina have followed for generations.

For that reason, people worried simply about the likelihood of hyperinflation, depression, or hyperinflation coupled with depression-and about how they might be able to protect their incomes and accumulated wealth under such circumstances-are viewing their world through rather ill-fitting rose-colored glasses. When hyperinflation or other economic calamities strike, and the Armed Forces are politicized as instruments of domestic repression, merely maintaining his income and securing his accumulated wealth will become matters of very low priority for anyone with high economic, social, or political visibility who has or might run afoul of the regime. So those myopic people who are trying to figure out how they can personally profit from the coming collapse of America's economy had better start thinking instead of how they can contribute to the effort to prevent that collapse, to fend off a police state that collapse will engender, and to return this country to the rule of constitutional law-right now, before time runs out.

Daily Bell: How can a police state be fended off?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: Actually, the constitutional solution for dealing with the emerging police state is even simpler than the solution for dealing with the collapsing Federal Reserve System. Now, I do not believe that, at the present time, the upper echelons of the Officer Corps in America's Armed Forces contain significant numbers of potential Bonapartists. The patriotic sense of "duty, hono r, country" doubtlessly still prevails. But this circumstance could change. It has changed in other countries. As the Second Amendment to the Constitution declares, "[a] well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State". Not the regular Armed Forces, but "[a] well regulated Militia".

"A well regulated Militia" is the only thing the Constitution identifies as "necessary" for any purpose, and the only thing it identifies as serving the specific purpose of "security". So, if Americans want a stable and prosperous economy, they want a free economy (that is, one based on the free market). If Americans want a free economy, they want "a free State", that being the only kind of political system that will support and defend the free market. And if Americans want "a free State", they want "[a] well regulated Militia" in every State. And what is "[a] well regulated Militia"? As Article 13 of Virginia's Declaration of Rights (1776) so aptly put it, "[a] well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state". That is, "[a] well regulated Militia" consists of We the People ourselves-in the final analysis, the only possible guarantors of freedom in a self-governing society.

Moreover, for all of these reasons, the members of the Armed Forces-all of whom take an oath to support the Constitution-should want "[a] well regulated Militia" in every State, too. Unfortunately, "[a] well regulated Militia", fully formed and operated according to proper constitutional principles, does not exist in even a single State today. (No, Virginia, the National Guard is not, never was, and cannot be the Militia.) So a great deal of work remains to be done in this area, as well.

Daily Bell: If these problems could be solved by application of the Constitution, then why did the Constitution not prevent them from arising in the first place? Has not the Constitution proven itself ineffective?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: We have had the benefit of the Ten Commandments since the days of Moses; but has their mere existence prevented all, or even most, sinful behavior? No. Whose fault has that been? God's or the sinners'? And shall we now blame the Ten Commandments-or worse, jettison them entirely-because some, even many, individuals continue to murder, to steal, and so on, whether in public office or private occupation?

The same reasoning applies to the Constitution. The Constitution is a set of instructions for running a complex political machine. This machine has as workmanlike a design as political science has ever recorded throughout the ages; and the instructions for its operation are concise and clear. So if, from time to time, the operators of the machine, through incompetence or malevolence, fail or refuse to follow those instructions, with deleterious results, does the fault lie with the instructions or the operators? Now, at one level, the operators of the constitutional machine are public officials. But they are subject to control by a higher level of operators: We the People, the selfsame We the People who (as its Preamble attests) "ordained and established th[e] Constitution" in the first place. So, if compliance with the Constitution's instructions has not been had, then ultimately We the People, not the Constitution, are to blame. Which is very fortunate, because We the People are in an unique position to do something about this situation.

We the People are the voters who select legislative, executive, and some judicial officers for government at every level of the federal system. We the People are in actual physical possession of most of the valuable property in this country. We the People constitute the Militia, which imposes upon us the direct responsibility to maintain "the security of a free State". And, with a little organization pursuant to statutes enacted in the States, We the People can effectively enforce Nancy Reagan's dictum: to "just say NO!" to further economic and political incompetence, corruption, and downright oppression in this country, emanating from Washington, D.C., New York City, or anywhere else .

Daily Bell: But is not the Supreme Court the final legal authority on what the Constitution means, and therefore legally superior to the people?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: Balderdash. A judicial opinion about the Constitution is precisely that, and no more: just an opinion of some fallible human beings who happened to occupy the Bench at that time. It may be correct-or it may be incorrect. The Supreme Court does not determine what the Constitution means; rather, the Constitution determines whether a decision of the Supreme Court is right or wrong. Even the Supreme Court has recognized that "[t]he power to enact carries with it final authority to declare the meaning of the legislation". Propper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472, 484 (1949). And We the People-not "we the judges"-enacted the Constitution. It is our supreme law, not theirs.

We are the principals, they merely our agents. So we are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution, and the ultimate judges of whether public officials are complying with it. As Sir William Blackstone, the Founding Fathers' primary legal mentor, observed: "whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to". Commentaries on the Laws of England (1771-1773), Volume 1, at 212. Any self-governing people should know as much without being reminded. One can only hope that the present economic crisis will focus people's minds on this basic truth to a degree sufficient to make a difference.

Daily Bell: Thank you for this interview.

Edwin Vieira Jr.: It was my pleasure.

After Thoughts with Scott Smith

It is interesting to interview someone so honest and informed as Dr. Vieira because one is exposed to a verity of human intelligence - the smarter the individual the clearer the vision. Speak to someone who is less well versed in the history of human legislative interaction and you will get all sorts of ideas spouting forth like firecrackers - and often none of it means much. The noise is random and the thoughts sparkle and trail off like sparklers, then die. But Dr. Vieira understands the basic thrust of what is going on and has a clear idea of where it's headed and what to do about it.

The interview speaks for itself. But to summarize - reading slightly between the lines - Dr. Vieira seems fairly certain that there will be some sort of social upheaval in America as a result of the economic and military forces now in play. He seems to believe that this could, to begin with, result in some sort of Latin-American style junta (they are familiar to Europe, too) and obviously believes the only way to avoid such a catastrophe is for "the people" to take back Constitutional rights.

In fact, this perspective is shared by many American libertarians with greater or lesser degrees of urgency. Certainly, there has never in our experience been the level of vituperation that one now witnesses on chat boards and in feedbacks whenever government programs and policies are mentioned. George Bush with his incessant meretricious spending, endless warring and ongoing endorsement of the regulatory state ended his time in office literally unable to speak anywhere except at military graduations. President Obama is rapidly approaching a point where he will not be warmly welcomed either in most American enc laves - and will likely have to restrict his speechifying to television.

And what then? Are the Republicans going to elect another compassionate conservative like George Bush? No, after three Internet presidencies we expect a tidal wave of support for a libertarian conservative. We know Sarah Palin is being groomed to take advantage of this wave, but as a proponent of the military police state and Homeland Security, we wonder if the contradiction in terms will not prove too much for her. And even if she is elected, or some like her who pays lip service to libertarian ideals, it will not paper over the growing divide in America between those who wish for freedom and those who espouse its cause (ludicrously) within the context of an activist IRS, a central bank, a domestic surveillance apparatus and a global, warlike military.

The point is, as Vieira notes, the sociopolitical consensus holding America together is falling to pieces. The political process is gradually grinding to a halt. It offers no answers. Obama's "change" is uniting his nation, but not in a way that the power elite might hope. People are increasingly aware of sociopolitical alternatives. Of course, we attribute this directly to the Internet and also to the difficulty that the power elite has had in creating war mobilization - the usual method of dealing with social disaffection and economic crises. The situation from our perspective is analogous to the inexplicable 30-year pan-European peasant war that somehow broke out - mysteriously - when the Gutenberg press began to erode the credibility of that era's power elite.

The Internet itself and the difficulty in creating a world war without an implacable enemy and within a nuclear environment has made the power elite's task far more difficult. There is a war going on, but it is not a very satisfactory one and the enemy keeps changing, as do the battle fronts. This is giving rise to skepticism, so much so that we wonder for how long such a war can continue as a viable promotion. From a power-elite perspective, it may eventually tend to cause more problems than it solves.

Vieira proposes that there may be increased civil unrest in America and Europe, leading up to a potential military takeover. In fact, in Europe we believe it has already started. And yet ... we are in favor of Vieira's alternative scenario - that civil unrest need not lead to endless martial law and South American-style banana republics.

The hallmark of a promotion is that it ignores factual reality, so we anticipate all these promotions and more will continue to progress legislatively. But as we have pointed out before, authoritarian implementation of such promotions does the power elite little good. Without a "buy in" a promotion is merely an enforcement. The populace may be cowed, but the resentment burns. It is certainly possible to keep billions cowed by fear (that's what the promotions are all about), but if the fear is merely administrative, then the danger to the power elite increases dramatically. You end up with a dictatorship. Dictators are targets.

The power elite for the most part stepped away from direct leadership hundreds of years ago. It was too dangerous. But now the Internet has exposed the leadership all over again. This is not a tolerable position for a handful of extraordinarily powerful people to be in. They will have to do something other than business as usual. Right now they are moving forward with an almost incomprehensible haste. But one might speculate they are still in denial. With acceptance will come an understanding that the timeline will have to be recalibrated.

Vieira is correct that Americans can take their Constitution back. One of the obstacles is fear, but fear erodes as the Internet educates and certain fear-mongering websites lose their grip. In fact, there are no more George Orwells for the power elite to promote. A British socialist spymaster who told us just what the power elite had in store (in order to make us cringe in fear), his narrative is beginning to seem outdated as reality overtakes prognostication.

Repetition, Internet-style, breeds familiarity - and familiarity breeds contempt. The dominant social themes and accompanying memes will not stick in such an environment. Mass martial law descending on hundreds of millions, or billions, is simply not feasible long term. Even "soft" martial law is a difficult environment to maintain long-term. The USSR's leaders found it out. The Chinese know it, and are troubled by it.

It took the Gutenberg press a full century to do its damage, but the Internet may only take 25 or 30 years. And the result may well be something entirely unexpected - not the gulags and martial suppression of the USSR (as predicted by Orwell and certain suspicious, perfervid ‘Net outlets) - but something more exciting and life-affirming.

Interviews and after-thoughts may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and writers.